On 21 April 2012 06:44, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > MAINTAINERS file is newer than most devices, so many are still missing. > > I don't think that grouping devices with the TCG target is a good idea. > > My reasoning for adding the Zynq devices to the machine was that it > seemed a natural fit - both were created by you and "belonged" to that > one machine.
Yes, those cases are clear. The difficult ones are things like for example the PL330 DMA controller that has been posted to the list, which happens to be used first by the zynq but will also be used by the exynos board and perhaps others later. I think listing this kind of generic device under the board which happened to first use it is misleading. > Another discussion this touches on is how the status of a MAINTAINERS > section is interpreted (my recent RFC series). Anthony has been > advocating that S: Maintained means to him you should queue patches for > that subsystem yourself rather than just sending/ack'ing patches on the > list. > How that interacts with TCG target maintenance is still somewhat of a > gray zone, i.e. ARM devices, despite not strictly documented in > MAINTAINERS, are in practice going through Peter as ARM maintainer for > coordination. Yes. I've been doing this because a lot of the ARM boards are in the 'occasional fixes' state where they get patches sometimes but don't have a continously active maintainer, so it's partly historical. (I do also value the code-review gate that running these board patches through me gives.) Would people prefer board maintainers to submit direct pull requests? -- PMM
